***

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) –

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 528 BNSS is for quashing the impugned order dated 03.02.2026, Annexure P4, passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, in FIR No.2088 dated 17.09.2025, registered at Police Station HSENB, Narnau, vide which condition to deposit 30% of the total amount of penalty to respondent No.2 has been imposed.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is owner of the truck which was seized by the mining authorities in the aforesaid FIR, loaded with sand, superdari of which he had sought, was initially dismissed by the trial Court, however, allowed by the Court of Sessions albeit subject to condition of deposit of 30% of the total amount of fine/penalty without even specifying the same.

3. In Sunderbhai Ambalal vs. State of Gujarat, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 380, it was held thus:-

“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.”

4. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, in Ikram vs. The State of Rajasthan, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.4797-4799/2023, had modified the condition for release of the vehicle by stipulating the petitioner would furnish a personal bond and deposit original title deeds, instead of bank guarantee, together with an undertaking that he will not transfer the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and produce the same as and when required, in connection with the FIR No.93 of 2022.

5. Furthermore, in Sombir vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-30659- 2021, decided on 03.08.2021, the Co-ordinate Bench held thus:-

“Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that imposing of condition of cash deposit of 20% of the penalty amount is onerous. It has been disapproved of by the Supreme Court in Keshab Narayan Banerjee and another versus State of Bihar AIR 1985 SC 166 and Sandeep Jain versus National Capital Territory of Delhi 2002 (2) SCC 66. Such a condition has been held to be oppressive by different High Courts and it amounts to virtually denial of relief. In so far as the condition of furnishing of sapurdari bond is concerned, suffice is to observe that the requirement of furnishing of bond of Rs.30 lacs is excessive and the same deserves to be suitably reduced, keeping in view the fact that even a new vehicle of the same make, costs lesser than the amount fixed for the bond. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.07.2021 is modified and the vehicle is ordered to be released on sapurdari to the petitioner on his furnishing sapurdari bond of Rs.15 lacs to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate subject to the condition that the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that:-

“(i). he will preserve the vehicle in the same condition during the pendency of the trial;

(ii). he will not sell, dispose of, alienate or mortgage etc. the vehicle, during pendency of the trial;

(iii). he will produce the vehicle before the trial Court as and when directed to do so and;

(iv). he will ensure that the vehicle is not involved in any other criminal case.”

In case of violation of the undertaking by the petitioner, liberty is granted to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the sapurdari bond.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.”

6. In Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi rep. by Secretary, Home Deptt., 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 517, the condition imposed vide impugned order by the trial Court for depositing Rs.2 lacs was set aside.

7. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the outcome of trial, the present petition is disposed of and the condition 30% of the total amount of fine/penalty is modified to the extent that the petitioner would furnish a personal bond together with an undertaking that he will not transfer the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and produce the same as and when required, in connection with the aforesaid FIR.

Order accordingly.

********